CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Health Benefit Management Cost Containment, Inc.

Plaintiffs Thurman and Barbara Walker filed a motion to remand their workers' compensation bad-faith claim against Service Lloyds Insurance Company and Health Benefit Management Cost Containment, Inc. (HBM), which had been removed to federal court by Service Lloyds. Defendants argued for ERISA preemption and against the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), which generally prohibits removal of state workers' compensation cases. The court, presided over by Judge Means, granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, concluding that ERISA's workers' compensation exemption applied. Furthermore, the court determined that § 1445(c) prohibited removal of bad-faith claims arising under state workers' compensation laws, deeming it an almost laughable anomaly to separate these claims. Consequently, the defendant's motion to stay was denied, as the court divested itself of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationERISA PreemptionMotion to RemandMotion to StayBad Faith ClaimTexas Insurance CodeFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsEmployee Benefit PlansSeparately Administered Plan
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyble v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiffs filed a suit in state court against DuPont, a diverse defendant, and C. Frank Riddick, a non-diverse defendant and plant manager. DuPont removed the case to federal court, arguing that Riddick was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction, and thus the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court analyzed whether a claim for exemplary damages against Riddick was precluded by Texas law, particularly given the Workers' Compensation Act. The court found that DuPont failed to prove fraudulent joinder, concluding that a cause of action for gross negligence and attendant exemplary damages could be maintained against an employee in their individual capacity under the relevant Texas Workers’ Compensation Act savings clause. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, dismissing the other motions as moot.

Motion to RemandFraudulent JoinderDiversity JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation ActExemplary DamagesGross NegligenceTexas LawSubject Matter JurisdictionState CourtFederal Court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saenz v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC

Plaintiffs Javier Saenz, Jorge Juarez, and Rebecca Arredondo filed a motion to remand their state law claims for breach of contract, assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision back to state court, while acknowledging federal jurisdiction over their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim. Defendants Austin Roofer’s Supply, LLC and Arturo Portillo opposed the partial remand. The Court granted the motion to remand for the tort claims (assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision) because they lacked a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim, thus failing supplemental jurisdiction requirements. However, the Court denied the motion to remand for the breach of contract claim, finding it shared a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim regarding unpaid wages, and therefore retained supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Removal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Breach of ContractAssault and BatteryNegligent TrainingNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionMotion to RemandFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goin v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LLC

Plaintiff Joanna Goin sued Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, Bass Pro, Inc., Three Johns Company, and Track-mar Corporation in Tennessee state court for retaliatory discharge after asserting workers' compensation rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law are common law torts and thus removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Plaintiff moved to remand, asserting that her claim requires the interpretation of Tennessee's workers' compensation statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114, especially concerning whether an employer's policy of reprisal or retaliatory acts other than discharge constitute a "device" under the statute, thus falling under the removal prohibition. The court, citing Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., determined that Goin's novel legal theories necessitate interpreting the state's workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, ruling that the action "arises under" the statute and should remain in state court.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationMotion to remandFederal jurisdictionDiversity jurisdictionCommon law tortTennessee lawStatutory interpretationPublic policy exception28 U.S.C. § 1445(c)
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Gomez sued Defendants O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. and O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. d/b/a O'Reilly Auto Parts for negligence, alleging a workplace injury and that the defendants were non-subscribers under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Gomez filed a motion to remand, arguing that her claims, being against a non-subscribing employer, arose under the TWCA and were therefore nonremovable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The Court denied the motion, finding that negligence claims against non-subscribing employers are common law claims, not created by the TWCA, and do not raise a substantial question of the TWCA. The Court also rejected the argument that a split in authority among district courts warranted remand, asserting its obligation to decide the issue and noting a growing consensus against remand in similar cases.

Motion to RemandWorkers' CompensationNonsubscriber EmployerNegligenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal RemovalStatutory InterpretationCommon LawTexas Labor CodeFederal Courts
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp.

This case involves the death of Renerio Z. Villar, a Philippine citizen, who drowned during his employment. His widow and children, also Philippine citizens, filed a third lawsuit against Crowley Maritime Corporation (CMC) and other codefendants, which was removed from Texas state court to a federal district court in Texas. The court addressed three motions: the Codefendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, CMC's motion to dismiss based on res judicata and forum non conveniens, and Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The court granted the Codefendants' motion to dismiss, finding no personal jurisdiction, and consequently denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand as moot. Additionally, the court granted CMC's motion to dismiss, citing a previous res judicata ruling from a California federal court and, alternatively, federal forum non conveniens principles. Plaintiffs were enjoined from initiating further lawsuits in any U.S. state or federal court regarding this matter, and their counsel was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for advancing unreasonable arguments and relying on misrepresentations.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensRes JudicataFraudulent JoinderAlter Ego DoctrineDiversity JurisdictionFederal ProcedureMaritime LawRule 11 SanctionsInjunction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Alcatel USA Resources, Inc.

Hernandez sued Alcatel for breach of contract after his employment was terminated in December 2003 and Alcatel failed to pay him severance and unused vacation pay as outlined in a Confidential Severance Agreement and General Release. Alcatel removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption. The court determined that Alcatel's Severance Plan constitutes an employee benefit plan under ERISA due to its ongoing administrative program and intent to benefit employees. Consequently, Hernandez's breach of contract claim is preempted by ERISA. The court denied Hernandez's motion to remand, granted Alcatel's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and gave Hernandez 30 days to file an amended complaint under ERISA.

ERISA PreemptionBreach of ContractSeverance BenefitsEmployment TerminationFederal JurisdictionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanReduction in ForceTexas Federal CourtMotion to RemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Owens-Illinois Glass Container, Inc.

This order addresses a plaintiff's motion to remand, where the central issue is whether a claim under Article 8307c of Vernon's Annotated Statutes, concerning wrongful discharge for filing workers' compensation claims, should be considered as arising under Texas workmen's compensation law. Federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) generally prohibits the removal of state workmen's compensation actions to federal court. While earlier federal cases in Texas leaned towards remand, more recent Texas appellate decisions have distinguished wrongful discharge claims from direct workers' compensation benefits, asserting that the latter pertains specifically to physical injuries. Citing these precedents and other federal rulings, the court concludes that an Article 8307c claim does not fall under the Texas workmen's compensation act for removal purposes. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is denied.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law InterpretationArticle 8307cTexas LawDiscrimination ClaimRemoval Statute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Jónnie Ryan, as personal representative of Mark Ryan and his estate, sued Wild Well Control, Inc. and Noble Drilling, Inc. following Mark Ryan's death while working offshore in Nigeria, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), general maritime law, and the Sieracki seaman doctrine. Wild Well Control, Inc. removed the case from state court to federal court, contending that recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permit the removal of such claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that general maritime claims are historically not removable without diversity jurisdiction, which was absent in this case. The court, however, analyzed the amended removal statute and found that its plain language no longer bars removal of admiralty and DOHSA claims, even without diversity. Consequently, the court denied the motion to remand.

Maritime LawRemoval JurisdictionFederal QuestionDiversity JurisdictionDeath on the High Seas ActSieracki SeamanJones ActLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActMotion to Remand
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 17,329 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational